Distance Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

Distance education students’ mental health,

connectedness and academic performance during
COVID-19: A mixed-methods study

Gina Di Malta, Julian Bond, Dominic Conroy, Katy Smith & Naomi Moller

To cite this article: Gina Di Malta, Julian Bond, Dominic Conroy, Katy Smith & Naomi
Moller (2022) Distance education students’ mental health, connectedness and academic
performance during COVID-19: A mixed-methods study, Distance Education, 43:1, 97-118, DOI:
10.1080/01587919.2022.2029352

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2029352

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 14 Feb 2022.

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 7502

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdie20
DISTANCE EDUCATION
2022, VOL. 43, NO. 1, 97–118
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2029352

ARTICLE

Distance education students’ mental health,

connectedness and academic performance during
COVID-19: A mixed-methods study
Gina Di Maltaa , Julian Bonda, Dominic Conroyb , Katy Smitha, and
Naomi Mollera
a
School of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The Open University,
United Kingdom; bSchool of Social Science and Professions, London Metropolitan University,
United Kingdom

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this study, we investigated the links between distance educa- Received 22 November 2021
tion students’ mental health, connectedness, and academic per- Accepted 10 January 2022
formance during COVID-19, using a mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design. Online survey responses with a sample of 208 KEYWORDS
distance education students—aged 18–84, 144 females, 60 males, mixed methods; mental
health; connectedness;
three nonbinary individuals, most (163) self-identified as White academic performance;
British—were analyzed using multiple regression, mediation, and COVID-19
content analysis. Connectedness (loneliness and a sense of con-
nection to university) mediated links between mental health (well-
being and anxiety) and academic performance. A subsample
analysis with students who met clinical concern thresholds of anx-
iety and wellbeing (n ¼ 123) revealed that poorer wellbeing was
associated with less emotional intimacy, more loneliness, and
poorer self-reported academic performance. Anxiety was associ-
ated with less emotional intimacy and higher relational intensity
with one person, and poorer self-reported academic performance.
These pathways were triangulated and contextualized within stu-
dents’ experiences of connectedness. Future research using a lon-
gitudinal design is needed to establish causal links.

Introduction
Distance education has seen an important acceleration in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, becoming widespread in traditional campus-based universities.
Consequently, illustrations of distance education students’ experiences are now key to
improving processes in education more widely. In addition, the pandemic has also cre-
ated new pressures on mental health across global populations, but also more specif-
ically for students, as is evident in multiple reports of rising mental health concerns
among university students from an international body of literature (Cao et al., 2020;

CONTACT Gina Di Malta gina.dimalta@open.ac.uk

ß 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
98 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

Grubic et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020). The role of universities in respect to their stu-
dents’ mental health has not always been clear—with questions around how, and to
what extent, universities should take on, alongside their core of providing education,
responsibility for students’ mental health (Hughes, 2021). The regulatory body for uni-
versities in England has encouraged universities to develop a whole- institution
response that spans initiatives to support student wellbeing (prevention) as well as
mental health and counselling services (Office for Students, n.d.). Yet, there is a lack of
research, and particularly in distance education, on what universities could do “to
reduce environmental stressors and promote protective factors in the university envi-
ronment” (Baik et al., 2019, p. 676). This paper examines one potential locus for inter-
ventions to improve student mental health, namely students’ relationships at
university, and does so within the context of the largest United Kingdom distance
education institution (The Open University, 2021).
Poor mental health in students clearly matters in and of itself but also due to its aca-
demic consequences. Both depression and anxiety have been found to negatively impact
the academic performance of university students (e.g., DeRoma et al., 2009; M. Richardson
et al., 2012). A report from the United Kingdom Office for Students (2019) found worrying
evidence of a statistically significant difference in award outcomes for students with men-
tal health disabilities compared to students with no disabilities. Mental health difficulties
have been found to negatively impact level of attainment and progression (Hughes &
Spanner, 2019; Thorley, 2017a) and whether students completed individual modules
(Mojtabai et al., 2015); as well as their degrees (Thorley, 2017b).
One factor that could potentially be leveraged by universities as a protective factor
for student mental health is the fostering of a sense of connectedness. The rationale
for this has come from the longstanding research literature on the impact of relation-
ships and social support (or their lack) on physical and mental health (e.g., Holt-
Lunstad et al., 2015). There is evidence to suggest that university-based relationships
have offered similar health impacts for students. For example, peer mentoring
schemes were found to improve student wellbeing (Akinla et al., 2018; Collings et al.,
2014) and reduce stress and anxiety (Kachaturoff et al., 2020). Good relationships with
first-year personal tutors were also found to positively impact the wellbeing of stu-
dents (Woolhouse & Nicholson, 2020). Research also suggests that a sense of belong-
ing to a university community has contributed to a high level of wellbeing,
satisfaction with life and a sense of meaning in life (Haslam et al., 2009).
As well as its link with mental health, there is evidence that a sense of connected-
ness at university impacts academic engagement and achievement. A large meta-
analytic study found that students’ emotional engagement, including their feelings
about staff and peers as well as their sense of belonging in the educational institution,
impacted their academic achievement (Lei et al., 2018). Furthermore, student retention
was related to successfully making friends who provided emotional support (Wilcox
et al., 2006) while peer relationships and a broader sense of institutional belonging
and social integration promoted adjustment to university and student retention
(Swenson et al., 2008; Thomas, 2000). Connectedness to the university is associated
with degree completion (Hausmann et al., 2007; Wilson & Gore, 2013) as well as higher
class attendance and better academic achievement, higher sense of efficacy and
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 99

competence when studying, higher motivation to study, and a greater amount of time
devoted to studying (Freeman et al., 2007, Zumbrunn et al., 2014).
In a distance education context, there is evidence that mental health impacts aca-
demic performance, for instance, academic attainment, progression, and retention (e.g.,
Lister et al., 2021; J. T. E. Richardson, 2015; Waterhouse et al., 2020). In one recent
study, Giusti et al. (2021) warned of the negative impact of distance education on the
mental health of students, which they identified as the strongest predictor of poor aca-
demic performance. They concluded that more research is needed to identify students’
psychological needs in distance education particularly during and post pandemic.
In a distance education context, there has been limited research on connectedness
and how it may be a protective factor to support mental health and academic per-
formance (Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2012). Connectedness in distance education has
been constructed as transactional presence—defined as sensing the availability and/or
connectedness with peers and tutors (Shin, 2003). Furthermore, Moore’s (2018) theory
of transactional distance similarly suggested that psychological distance could be
bridged by dialogue and structure to overcome the disconnection of geographical dis-
tance. One study that examined students’ sense of institutional connectedness and
student community in online learning contexts found that it impacted student persist-
ence in an online collaborative learning environment (Laux et al., 2016). Similarly, dis-
tance education students’ perceptions of transactional presence with their peers and
tutors were significant predictors of their learning as assessed with perceived learning
achievement, satisfaction, and their intent to persist (Shin, 2003).

The present study

Despite the rise in distance education, the evidence of the impacts of mental health
on academic performance, and the potential benefits of connectedness for academic
performance, no study has directly investigated the links between connectedness,
mental health, and academic performance in a distance education context. This
mixed-methods study aimed to investigate these links, and in particular how connect-
edness might be a mechanism of action in the relationship between mental health
and academic performance.
The three main variables in this study were assessed using nine brief and well-vali-
dated measures (Di Malta, Raymond-Barker, et al., in press; Topp et al., 2015; Spitzer
et al., 2006). For mental health outcomes, we selected a wellbeing scale—the World
Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5; Topp et al., 2015)—and a mental health
scale—the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006)—in order to
cover both wellbeing and mental health and due to these measures being and having
norms which allow for comparison with other populations in the United Kingdom
(e.g., Jones et al., 2019). Anxiety was specifically targeted as a mental health variable
because of its role in academic performance (Duncan et al., 2021). There were five
scales selected to assess connectedness in students, which covered two areas of con-
nectedness that have typically been associated with wellbeing and mental health.
These were the Campus Connectedness Scale (Lee & Davis, 2000; Lee, et al., 2002) and
the Relational Depth Frequency Scale-General (RDFS-g; Di Malta, Evans, et al., 2020), to
100 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

assess types of collective connectedness—characterized by a sense of belonging to a

larger group or community (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2012); the Emotional Intimacy Scale
(EIS; Sinclair & Dowdy, 2005) and the Relational Depth Frequency Scale-Specific (RDFS-
s; Di Malta, Evans, et al., 2020) were used to assess aspects of intimate connected-
ness—characterized by the presence of a significant person or close friend (Cacioppo
& Cacioppo, 2012; Di Malta, Bond, et al., in press); and the De Jong Gierveld
Loneliness Short Scale (Gierveld & VanTilburg, 2006; Moeller & Seehuus, 2019) to
assess disconnection. Academic performance was assessed using students’ mean mod-
ule scores (self-reported), and with a subjective assessment of students’ self-reported
satisfaction with their result. Our research questions were as follows:

1. Does connectedness mediate the relationship between mental health and aca-
demic performance? (RQ1)
2. For students who meet clinical thresholds for low wellbeing or anxiety disorders,
how is connectedness associated with mental health? (RQ2)
3. What are students’ experiences of connection and disconnection, which are asso-
ciated with academic performance? (RQ3)

Materials and methods

An ethical review was obtained according to The Open University’s code of practice
and procedures on 17 December 2020, with the reference number HREC/3751/MOLLER.

Design
This study adopted a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, which involved a
quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase (Creswell, 2014). In the quantitative
phase, we explored relationships between the two mental health variables (wellbeing
and anxiety), the five connectedness variables (campus connectedness, emotional
intimacy and relational depth with a significant person at university, relational depth
with all people at the university, and loneliness) and the two academic variables
(mean academic grade and self-reported academic performance) (RQ1 & RQ2). The
qualitative phase aimed to allow better understanding of the relationships between
variables and contextualization of the statistical results (RQ3). More specifically it pro-
vided triangulation for the quantitative findings as well as illustrations of students’
experiences of connectedness and disconnection based on their satisfaction with aca-
demic performance.

Distance education context

The study was conducted at The Open University—the world’s first higher education
distance learning institution, according to the Times Higher Education (2022). It is the
largest academic institution in the United Kingdom with approximately 200,000 regis-
tered students, with most of them studying off-campus. Teaching is delivered via
module tutors, using a blended design with a variety of online approaches to
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 101

communications technology, both synchronous and asynchronous (The Open

University, 2021). Data collection started in the first quarter of the academic year
2020-2021 and lasted for a period of 6 months; this was at the time the UK govern-
ment was imposing its third national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic
(UK Parliament, 2021).

Procedure
The data was collected via an anonymized online survey using the data collection soft-
ware Qualtrics (Baker, 2013). Eligible participants were those aged 18þ studying at
The Open University. Participants were recruited via institutional email drives. Emails
were sent to a pool of approximately 2000 students in the Faculty of Arts and Social
Sciences. All participants were studying their second module and beyond and had had
at least 1 year of study prior to completing the survey. The survey consisted of self-
report scales and open-ended questions. One of the questions asked respondents to
select a relationship at the university that had felt significant for them, on which
responses to two of the connectedness scales were based (EIS; Sinclair & Dowdy, 2005;
RDFS-s; Di Malta, Evans, et al., 2020). When selecting a significant relationship at uni-
versity, over half the participants nominated an institutional tutor as their referent
(n ¼ 117; 56%), though nominated referents also included another student (n ¼ 41;
20%), an individual in the student support team (n ¼ 7; 3%), another individual at the
institution (n ¼ 8; 4%), or any other person with whom that individual had a relation-
ship within the university (n ¼ 35; 17%).

Measures
Mental health outcomes
 WHO-5 (Topp et al., 2015): 5 items, a ¼ .90. It included a stem statement reading
“Please indicate for each of the five statements which is closest to how you have
been feeling over the last two weeks. Notice that higher numbers mean better
wellbeing.” followed by a series of items (e.g., “I have felt cheerful and in good spi-
rits”) using response options from 0 (at no time) to 5 (all of the time). Higher scores
indicate higher levels of wellbeing. Scores  50 indicate above average wellbeing
levels (Topp et al., 2015).
 GAD-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006): 7 items, a ¼ .92. It included a stem statement reading
“Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the follow-
ing problems?” followed by seven items (e.g., “Feeling nervous, anxious or on
edge”) using response options from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). Higher
scores indicate higher levels of anxiety. Scores  10 indicate clinical anxiety
(Spitzer et al., 2006).

Connectedness
 Campus Connectedness Scale (Lee & Davis, 2000; Lee, et al., 2002): 14 items (8
reversed), a ¼ .92. A self-report measure with items such as “There are people on
campus with whom I feel a close bond”) and response options from 1 (strongly
102 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The instrument was adapted for use in a distance
learning context: the phrase “on campus” was replaced with “in the university”.
Higher scores indicate higher levels of connectedness at university.
 RDFS, comprising RDFS-g and RDFS-s (Di Malta, Evans, et al., 2020): 6 items, a ¼ .93. Di
Malta, Cooper, et al. (2020) and Di Malta, Evans, et al. (2020) initially developed and vali-
dated the RDFS to measure relational depth between psychotherapist and client, a con-
struct associated with improved mental health outcomes and satisfaction (e.g., Di
Malta, Raymond-Barker, et al., in press; Kim et al., 2020). Di Malta, Bond, et al. (in press)
later adapted the RDFS to assess close relationships in the community and found that
it was significantly related to psychological wellbeing and moderated by emotional
intimacy. This latter version of the RDFS was used in this study. Items included “We
were deeply connected to one another,” and response options ranged from 1 (not at
all) to 5 (most of the time). The RDFS-g (a ¼ .93 in this study) assessed the frequency of
relational depth with people using the modified stem “When considering my interac-
tions with all the people I know at The Open University over the last academic year,
there were moments where … ”. The RDFS-s (a ¼ .91 in this study) assessed relational
depth in a chosen significant relationship at university using the modified stem “In my
interactions with ______ there were moments where … ”. Higher scores indicate
greater frequency of relational depth.
 EIS (Sinclair & Dowdy, 2005): 5 items, a ¼ .87. This is a self-report measure which
began with the stem “Consider how well the following statements describe your
current experience with < the referent>. Think in terms of the quality of your rela-
tionship with < the referent > in answering these items.” Items included “This per-
son completely accepts me as I am,” and response options ranged from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Participants were instructed to rate the same referent
as the one chosen for the RDFS-s. Higher scores indicate a stronger sense of emo-
tional intimacy with referents.
 De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Short Scale (Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2006): 6 items, a
¼ .78. This is a self-report measure of emotional loneliness (3 items) (e.g., “I experi-
ence a general sense of emptiness”); and social loneliness (3 items, 3 reversed, e.g.,
“I miss having people around”). Response options were 2 (yes), 1 (more or less) and
0 (no). Higher scores indicate higher levels of loneliness. For this scale, scores  3
indicate loneliness (Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2006). Our sample included 141 individ-
uals with clinically relevant above-threshold levels of loneliness (67.8% of over-
all sample).
 Open-text questions. There were three open-text questions in the survey to elicit
students’ accounts and personal experiences of connectedness and disconnection
with people at the university, and what they believed might improve their sense of
connection at the university. The open-text questions were as follows:
- Can you recall particular events or moments in the last academic year when
you have felt emotionally connected to people at The Open University and/or
to The Open University community? Please describe one to three of these
instances. (Please do not name any individual when you refer to them.)
- Can you recall particular instances in the last academic year at The Open
University where you have felt alone or disconnected? Please describe one to
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 103

three of these instances. (Please do not name any individual when you refer
to them.)
- Do you have ideas about what would make you personally feel more con-
nected to The Open University? Please give as many ideas as you can think of.

Academic performance
 Mean module scores for previous academic year. Self-reported mean module scores
for the prior academic year were recorded.
 Satisfaction with academic performance. Self-reported free-text academic perform-
ance data was available from 200 respondents. These free-text responses were
recorded in response to the statement “In your view, how did you do in your mod-
ules overall in the last academic year?”. This data was coded by the first author
into inductively derived scale data ranging from scores of 0 (not pleased), 1
(ambivalent), and 2 (pleased). This data was then coded as either “not pleased,”
“ambivalent,” or “pleased” by an additional independent coder blinded to the first
coder’s codes. Coding revealed good inter-rater agreement (91% agreement, K ¼
0.85). The 18 instances of coding differences reflected that the second coder, com-
pared to the first coder, gave more positive ratings by one category in 12 instances
(16.7% overall codes), by two categories in one instance (0.5% overall codes), and
more negative ratings by one category in five instances (2.5% overall codes).
Discrepancies between coder judgements were reviewed and allocated a definitive
final code by a third coder to ensure the validity of final assumed categories.

Participants
There were 382 students who accessed the survey and, of these, 208 completed it.
The response rate was approximately 10.4%. In total, 174 incomplete responses were
excluded from analyses (55% complete responses). Most students had studied at least
one module (n ¼ 155; 77.5%). Where students had studied two (n ¼ 44; 21.2%) or three
modules (n ¼ 3; 1.3%), average cross-module achieved scores were calculated. Of the
208 students in the study, 39.9% scored below 5 (low anxiety) on the GAD-7, 26.4%
scored between six and 10 (mild anxiety), 20.7% scored between seven and 15 (mod-
erate anxiety), and 13% scored above 16 (severe anxiety). For wellbeing, 36.5% scored
below 37.5% (likely need some professional help), 24.1% scored between 37.5% and
52% (might need an assessment of professional health needs), 19.2% scored between
52.1% and 74.9% (below average wellbeing), and 20.2% scored above 75% (average or
above wellbeing). Overall, there were 78 students above the clinical threshold for anx-
iety disorder (GAD7  10; 37.5% overall sample), and 114 students were below clinical
threshold levels for wellbeing (WHO-5  49; 55% overall sample). Participants’ demo-
graphics are reported in Table 1.

Analytic approach
Quantitative analysis
First, we sought to establish whether links were present between connectedness, men-
tal health, and academic performance variables at a statistically significant bivariate
104 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

Table 1. Student characteristics (n ¼ 208).

Study variables Mean (SD) [score range] N % total sample
Age (years) 44.4 (14.69) [18–84]
18–40 96 46
41–60 77 37
61þ 34 16
Gender
Female 145 70
Male 60 29
Nonbinary 3 1
Ethnicity
White British 163 78
White other 30 14
Black British 7 3
Asian British 4 2
Mixed ethnicity 3 1
Disability status
Identified disability 44 21
Mental health and autism 20 10
Musculoskeletal 8 4
Pain-related and fatigue 5 2
Sensory impairment 3 1
Neurological 3 1
Other disability 5 2
No identified disability 160 77
Learning mode
Full-time 40 19
Part-time 159 76
Learning needs
Identifiable learning needs
Unspecified learning needs 22 11
Dyslexia 9 4
Needs linked to learning mode 2 1
No identified learning needs 169 81
Study variables
WHO-5 51.2 (14.7) [0–100]
GAD-7 8.1 (5.94) [0–21]
Campus Connectedness Scale 2.9 (1.34) [1–6]
RDFS-s 2.2 (1.06) [1–5]
RDFS-g 1.89 (0.93) [1–5]
EIS 2.8 (1.01) [1–6]
Loneliness Short Scale 3.5 (1.91) [0–6]
Academic scores (average for previous year) 75.1 (12.60) [20–95]
Self-rated academic performance (% pleased) 1.35 (0.79) [0–2]

level. Second, we conducted multiple regression as an exploratory assessment of

whether connectedness and academic achievement variables were predictive of each
mental health outcome when demographic variables are controlled for. Third, we
explored mediation pathways between connectedness, mental health, and academic
achievement variables where evidence of links between variables was apparent at ear-
lier stages of analysis.
Mediation analyses were conducted to address whether connectedness mediates
the relationship between academic performance and mental health (addressing RQ1
and RQ2). Mediation analyses were conducted using bootstrapping as a resampling
method to estimate model parameters. Model 4 of Hayes’ PROCESS version 3.4 was
used for all bootstrapping mediation analyses (5,000 bootstrap samples were gener-
ated). Indirect pathways were specified in a parallel process model to assess possible
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 105

mediation of mental health and academic achievement variables via connected-

ness measures.
We then tested correlations for the subsample of 123 individuals self-reporting clin-
ical levels of high anxiety or low wellbeing or both high and anxiety and low well-
being. Descriptive statistics indicated high subsample variability for mental health
outcomes including for anxiety (MSubsample ¼ 11.37, SD ¼ 5.23) and wellbeing
(MSubsample ¼ 33.0, SD ¼ 14.8). Given this variability, we reran previously specified mul-
tiple regressions on the 123 “of-clinical-concern” participant subsample.

Qualitative analysis
Following this, open-text survey questions were analyzed to illustrate the relationships
identified in the quantitative part of the study: students’ experiences of connectedness
depending on their self-reported academic performance. In order to do this, the first
author initially split cases in two groups based on self-rated academic performance.
She then used content analysis to systematically categorize open-text responses to
determine the existence and frequency of particular themes within students’ experien-
ces of significant moments of connection, moments of loneliness, and suggestions for
improvement (Coe & Scacco, 2017). The analysis was focused on the level of themes,
or the level of meaning for segments of texts, and allowed flexibility to add categories
through the coding process (Neuendorf, 2018). Themes were audited by the third
author to increase validity and ensure that the coding adequately represented the
specified phenomena.

Results
Phase 1: quantitative
Preliminary analyses
Given our sample’s unequal ratio of men and women (70% female), gender differences
were considered (see Table 2).

Regression and mediation analyses (RQ1)

Mann-Whitney U tests were run as a non-parametric equivalent test to explore gender
differences in core study variables. These tests revealed nonsignificant differences
between women and men on both academic variables, p ¼  .594; and on all five
connectedness variables, p ¼  .301. However, female students reported higher anx-
iety levels (U ¼ 5439, p < .01, g2 ¼ .05) and lower levels of wellbeing than male stu-
dents (U ¼ 3114, p < .001, g2 ¼ .05).
At the bivariate level, close links were found between mental health variables
and loneliness (rs  ± 0.36), anxiety and academic performance (rs  -0.18), and
between academic performance and campus connectedness (rs  ± 0.16) (see
Table 2). Better (more connected) campus connectedness was associated with bet-
ter mental health outcomes and better academic performance (in both cases, as
defined above).
We next ran multiple regression models (Table 3) to establish whether (and how
well) connectedness, controlling for demographic and academic performance,
 106
G. DI MALTA ET AL.

Table 2. Correlations between demographic and psychological variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Age —
2 Gender 0.27 —
3 WHO-5 wellbeing 0.24 0.23 —
4 GAD-7 anxiety 0.28 0.22 0.67 —
5 Campus connectedness 0.04 0.06 0.27 0.20 —
6 RDFS-g 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.60 —
7 RDFS-s 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.41 0.72 —
8 Emotional intimacy 0.07 0.02 0.16 0.06 0.37 0.58 0.68 —
9 Loneliness 0.21 0.08 0.54 0.36 0.34 0.23 0.15 0.11 —
10 Mean module scores (previous academic year) 0.05 0.02 0.16 0.19 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.24 —
11 Self-rated academic performance 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.16 0.12 0.28 0.43 —
Note. n ¼ 170–208; p < .05 p < .01 p < .001.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 107

Table 3. Regression of mental health outcomes on age and gender, academic performance, and
connectedness.
WHO-5 Wellbeing Index GAD-7 Anxiety
Step Variables entered b b b b b b
1. Age .20 .17 .10 .22 .19 .16
Gender .14 .17 .17 .16 .19 .22
2. Mean module scores — .16 .09 — .17 .17
Self-rated academic performance — .12 .01 — .15 .15
3. Campus connectedness — — .21 — — .20
RDFS-s — — .02 — — .26
RDFS-g — — .21 — — .12
Emotional intimacy — — .17 — — .23
Loneliness — — .43 — — .22
R2 .08 .13 .35 .10 .16 .28
Model F 6.44 5.82 8.88 8.04 7.48 6.24
Note. p < .05 p < .01 p < .001

predicted mental health outcomes. All regression analyses were tested for lack of mul-
ticollinearity (VIF analysis), independence of associations (Durbin-Watson analysis),
homoskedacity (Breusch-Pagan and Kenfer analyses) and lack of overly influential cases
(Cook’s statistic). No significant issues were found with any of these assumptions.
WHO-5 wellbeing and GAD-7 anxiety were predicted independently by campus con-
nectedness (b ¼  ± 0.21, ps < .05) and loneliness (b ¼  ± 0.22, ps  .01), and
GAD-7 anxiety was also predicted independently by connectedness variables (b ¼  ±
0.23, ps < .05).
Psychological predictors were reexamined in regression models with loneliness
recoded as a dichotomous variable (below vs. at and beyond clinical threshold of
scores  3). Results suggested that loneliness was a highly significant independent
predictor of WHO-5 wellbeing (b ¼ .37, p < .001). GAD-7 Anxiety was independently
predicted by loneliness (b ¼ .21, p < .01), and at a p < .05 level by connectedness (b
¼ -.20), relational depth frequency (specific) (b ¼ .23), and intimacy (b ¼ .24).
Psychological predictors were also reexamined in logistic regression models with re-
coded dichotomous outcome variables (and loneliness included as a binary predictor
variable). WHO-5 wellbeing (below vs. at and beyond clinical threshold of scores 50)
was independently predicted by connectedness (odds ratio ¼ 1.64, 95% CI 1.124,
2.384), relational depth frequency (general) (odds ratio ¼ 0.43, 95% CI .213, .850) and
intimacy (odds ratio ¼ 0.20, 95% CI .086, .460). GAD-7 anxiety (below vs. at and
beyond clinical threshold of scores 10) was independently predicted by loneliness
(odds ratio ¼ 2.92, 95% CI 1.186, 7.195).
We subsequently sought to establish whether connectedness mediated the relation-
ship between academic achievement and mental health (i.e., evidence addressing
RQ1). Loneliness mediated the relationship between both WHO-5 wellbeing (95% CI
.138, .417) and GAD-7 anxiety (95% CI .071, .014) and mean academic grade.
Loneliness also mediated the relationship between both WHO-5 wellbeing (95% CI
2.185, 7.318) and GAD-7 anxiety (95% CI 1.318, .286) and self-reported academic
performance. We also found evidence that campus connectedness mediated the rela-
tionship between self-reported academic performance and WHO-5 wellbeing (95% CI
.136, 3.284).
108 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

Initial evidence implicated loneliness as key to both academic performance and

mental health. Accordingly, we next sought to establish whether connectedness medi-
ated the relationship between loneliness and mental health (i.e., evidence addressing
RQ2). Campus connectedness mediated the relationship between loneliness and both
WHO-5 wellbeing (95% CI 1.499, .096) and GAD-7 anxiety (95% CI .007, .411).

Clinical concern subsample regression analyses (RQ2)

Clinical subsample (n ¼ 123) analyses revealed that lower levels of WHO-5 wellbeing
were independently predicted by lower self-rated academic performance (b ¼ .23, p <
.05), lower emotional intimacy (b ¼ .29, p < .05) and higher loneliness levels (b ¼
.35, p < .01).
Clinical subsample (n ¼ 123) analyses also revealed that higher levels of GAD-7 anx-
iety were independently predicted by lower self-rated academic performance (b ¼
.23, p < .05), higher relational depth frequency (specific) (b ¼ .38, p < .05), and
lower emotional intimacy (b ¼ .28, p < .05). Taken together, the most consistent
findings suggested that worse mental health outcomes were associated with lower
levels of emotional intimacy and less favorable self-ratings of academic performance.

Phase 2: qualitative (RQ3)

The content analysis resulted in 17 main themes within three overarching domains.
Frequencies for the two student groups and example quotes are presented in Table 4
and the Appendix.
Comparisons of students who were satisfied with their academic achievement
(n ¼ 115) with those who were ambivalent or dissatisfied (n ¼ 88) suggested differences
in experiences of connection and disconnection. Students less satisfied with their aca-
demic performance appeared to experience less connection via tutorials, student com-
munities, and forums but tended to rely more on connection via their tutor relationships
than students who were satisfied with their academic performance. Students appeared
more likely to experience a general disconnection with the university and poorer interac-
tions with their tutors when they were less satisfied with their academic performance.

Discussion
We sought to examine the relationships between mental health, connectedness, and
academic performance in a distance education context. In this context, we found that
student connectedness is associated with less anxiety and better academic perform-
ance. Furthermore, lack of connectedness (loneliness) is a mechanism of action in the
link between mental health (wellbeing and anxiety) and academic performance. In
other words, being lonely increases the chances of poor academic performance in stu-
dents with worse mental health. A sense of connection to university, on the other
hand, mitigates the experience of loneliness and its impact on mental health (well-
being and anxiety). These findings are consistent with the extensive literature, which
has identified relationships as protective factors for both mental health and academic
performance in campus-based education contexts (e.g., M. Richardson et al., 2012;

Table 4. Moments of connectedness and disconnection among academically satisfied and dissatis-
fied students.
Emergent themes/subthemes
relating to connection and
disconnection
1. Reports on moments
of connection
1.1. No moments of connection
1.2. Tutorials
a. face-to-face
b. online
c. quiz nights and events
1.3. Student community
a. WhatsApp group
b. support on social media
c. peer feedback/support
d. friendship
e. emotional sharing
1.4. Relationship with tutor/staff
a. personal and supportive
contact with staff
b. kind, friendly, approachable,
available, tutor
c. encouraging feedback
d. phone call
1.5. Connection through forums
a. provide support
b. share frustration
c. normalise feelings
2. Reports on moments of
disconnection
2.1. No moments of disconnection
2.2. Impact of COVID
a. Exam cancellation
b. Cancellation of tutorials
c. Abrupt end, left adrift
d. Lack of face-to-face contact
2.3. Personal circumstances
a. Not able to get to face-to-
face events
b. Mental health issues
c. Family situations
d. Writing assignments alone
e. Not knowing students
nearby
f. Age gap
2.4. Poor interactions with tutors
or staff
a. Cold, confusing or
sarcastic emails
b. deflecting queries
c. unapproachable
d. little contact/no response
2.5. Mostly disconnected all
the time
a. No particular instance
DISTANCE EDUCATION 109
Ambivalent or
Satisfied with dissatisfied with
academic academic
performance performance
(N ¼ 115) (N ¼ 85) Illustration
N (%) N (%)
35 (26) 46 (44) “I have not felt emotionally connected
to anyone during my OU studies”
32 (24) 17 (16) “The only time I’ve felt in any way
connected is when we had an
online tutorial and I mentioned
something to do with baking and
others were supportive and
enthusiastic about it.”
29 (21) 11 (10) “There was a personal group on
WhatsApp where we would zoom
call and support each other in a
more personal way than some of
the bigger groups”
26 (19) 24 (23) “I have felt highly appreciated by my
tutor whilst I was struggling
mentally with assignments and just
being stressed in general”
14 (10) 7 (7) “Trying to offer messages of support
to people who are struggling on
the OU forums makes me feel
emotionally connected to my
tutor group”
34 (28) 16 (17) “I can honestly say that there isn’t a
31(25) 15 (16) time where I have felt completely
alone and disconnected.”
“during lockdown I felt alone”
17 (14) 17 (18) “The people in my current tutor group
are much older than me and
therefore I find it difficult to relate
to them and be able to join in with
their conversations in the forum”.
16 (13) 22 (23) “I don’t feel like there was any effort
made by my tutors to reach out to
me, and I was too afraid to make
contact with them too, and so I felt
very disconnected.”
14 (11) 22 (23) “Most of the year. Often sat at my
computer and felt alone
and unsure”
(continued)
110 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

Table 4. Continued.
Ambivalent or
Satisfied with dissatisfied with
Emergent themes/subthemes academic academic
relating to connection and performance performance
disconnection (N ¼ 115) (N ¼ 85) Illustration
N (%) N (%)
2.6. Limitations with forum 10 (8) 3 (3) “When seeing all the comments on
a. Lack of engagement or module forum - overwhelmed by
time to contribute the number of comments and not
b. Overwhelmed to see other having the energy to read them all,
students are ahead yet wondering if I was missing out”

Woolhouse & Nicholson, 2020), but they extend the limited evidence that connected-
ness can support academic achievement in distance education (Shin, 2003; Slagter van
Tryon & Bishop, 2012). An alternative explanation is that students who are both less
anxious and doing well academically tend to form higher quality relationships, reach-
ing out to create and maintain connection at university due to their confidence and
self-efficacy (Lane et al., 2004). Another hypothesis is that the associations between
student academic performance, mental health and relational connectedness in a dis-
tance university context are bidirectional.
In participants of clinical concern, worse wellbeing is associated with less emotional
intimacy, more loneliness, and lower self-reported academic performance; increased
anxiety is associated with high relational depth but in the context of low emotional
intimacy with one selected individual at university (typically a tutor or another stu-
dent), and lower self-reported academic performance. The latter finding is somewhat
surprising in the light of previous evidence linking relational depth to overall positive
psychological outcomes (e.g., Di Malta, Raymond-Barker, et al., in press; Kim et al.,
2020). However, recent evidence has suggested that emotional intimacy moderates
the impact of relational depth on wellbeing in close relationships in the community
(Di Malta, Bond, et al., in press). Thus, in a distance education context, its association
with anxiety and poor subjective academic performance is likely due to low levels of
emotional intimacy.
Furthermore, these findings make the link between mental health and academic
achievement in the context of distance education during COVID-19. As per Giusti et al.’s
(2021) study—conducted in Italy during this period—we found that student mental
health in our sample was particularly poor; with over half with low wellbeing and almost
40% at clinical levels of anxiety. However, these rates of wellbeing are comparable to
those of distance-based law students prior to the pandemic starting (Jones et al., 2019).
Thus, it is possible that distance education students’ wellbeing and mental health is
poorer independently of the pandemic context. Based on internal data from The Open
University, the majority of students have been juggling study alongside work and/or car-
ing responsibilities and may be carrying significant stress as a result. Also, the university
has a significant number of students who have declared a mental health-related disabil-
ity. Thus, it is possible that students choose to study with a distance education provider
because they have preexisting mental health conditions that, they feel, would preclude
or prevent them from studying at a campus-based university.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 111

Our findings corroborate with those of Giusti et al. (2021), suggesting that poor
mental health may be a significant predictor of poor academic performance. This
research, however, also brings a potential answer to Giusti et al.’s recommendations
for the need to identify students’ psychological needs in order to refine educational
offerings and improve mental health in distance education; that is, students’ needs for
connectedness as identified in our study: having a sense of connectedness to univer-
sity and emotional intimacy with at least one significant person at university.
Finally, our qualitative findings provide descriptions of students’ experiences of con-
nectedness and triangulation for the quantitative findings. These suggest that students
appeared less likely to have had significant moments of connection at university when
they were less satisfied with their self-rated academic performance. Students’ descriptions
of connectedness in a distance education context are consistent with Moore’s (2018) the-
ory that transactional distance involves the psychological (rather than geographical) dis-
tance between learners and the teacher (Moore & Kearsley, 2011). Furthermore, students
appeared more likely to report on experiences of general disconnection with the univer-
sity and poorer interactions with their tutors when they were less satisfied with their aca-
demic performance. Students’ descriptions of their experiences of connectedness suggest
that those less satisfied with their academic performance may experience less connection
via tutorials, student communities, and through forums, on the other hand, they may
rely more on connection via their tutor relationships. These findings illustrate quantitative
findings by offering insights into how aspects of connectedness can support mental
health and academic performance. Although better students seem to thrive on social
connectedness (e.g., via group forums, group tutorials and student communities), poorer
students, on the other hand, may rely more on a one-to-one connection with their tutor
in order to feel connected. This is consistent with the psychotherapy literature, which
has suggested that individuals who are more vulnerable are also more dependent and
thrive better on having a deeper connection with another person (e.g., Mearns & Cooper,
2017). As per students’ reports within this distance education context, some students
chose to maintain a distance from the university and have made a choice not to connect
with others. This is reflected in the qualitative findings, where some students suggested
they did not expect or want a close connection with the university (Appendix).
Our study is limited in several ways. First, relative to recently documented demo-
graphic characteristics of the general population of students in UK higher education, our
participants included a large proportion of female students (70% vs. 57% nationally) and
of students self-identifying as White (92% vs. 75% nationally) and a much lower propor-
tion of younger students (7% vs. 69% nationally aged 18–24 years) (Higher Education
Statistics Agency, 2019). Second, the study design was cross-sectional, and thus we can-
not draw conclusions about causation between variables. Third, samples were small and
significance levels were only at the level of p < .05; thus, these results must be taken
with caution. As stated, data collection occurred mid-COVID-19 pandemic, which may
have strengthened the links between our variables and may have particularly empha-
sized students’ high levels of loneliness and mental health difficulties. As a result, these
findings may be generalizable to students in distance education in times of crisis or par-
ticular conditions of isolation but also provide insights into what distance education
may be like for individuals who are at risk of isolation (e.g., elderly people).
112 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

Future research should explore the impact of connectedness on mental health and
academic performance using a longitudinal design in order to assess potential causal
links. Such study would provide evidence, which could support the implementation of
new distance education policies, as well as practical implications such as the creation
of tutor and staff training, or guidelines for best practice in distance education.

Implications for distance education

At the start of this paper, we discussed the lack of research on what universities could
do to promote protective factors in the university environment for student mental
health. This study highlights the particularly important mental health needs of dis-
tance education students. Based on our findings, we propose the following recom-
mendations for distance education providers:

1. Universities need multiple solutions to enable moments of connection to occur.

This includes clear visible routes to these potential connections outside of the for-
mal timetabled teaching events.
2. Students would benefit from opportunities for connection through access to per-
sonal contact with their tutors, such as 1-to-1 phone calls, personal emails, and ad
hoc communication.
3. University staff might benefit from guidelines on the benefits of making opportu-
nities for connection as well as how to be helpful to students who approach
them. Tutors may need support on being proactive and reaching out to those stu-
dents who do not make contact with the university.
4. Finally, universities should consider increased opportunities for connections to
peers and the university in both academic and social aspects of the university
environment. This may be through targeted peer support through peer mentoring
(both in and out of a course) and community programs outside of the formal
learning environment. In a distance learning environment, these opportunities for
connection may need to occur through online interaction.

Acknowledgments
We thank The Open University students who took the time to participate in this study.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by The Open University FASSTEST grant.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 113

Notes on contributors
Gina Di Malta is a counselling psychologist, lecturer in psychotherapy at The Open University,
and editor-in-chief of Counselling Psychology Review. Her research interests are psychotherapy
processes that lead to outcomes, the psychology of connectedness, and psychological wellbeing
in communities.
Julian Bond is a specialist statistician and PhD student in psychology at The Open University.
Katy Smith is a senior lecturer and associate director of student support in the School of
Psychology & Counselling at The Open University. Her current academic interests are mental
health and student engagement. Katy is a chartered psychologist, an associate fellow of the
British Psychological Society and a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy.
Dominic Conroy is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University. He is a mixed-methods
researcher with expertise in interpretative phenomenological analysis and discourse analysis. He
has an interest in behavior change interventions that promote health behavior.
Naomi Moller is a professor of psychology, head of discipline in the School of Psychology and
Counselling at The Open University, and the UK chapter president of the Society for
Psychotherapy Research. Her research interests are broadly focused on counselling and psycho-
therapy practice and mental health and wellbeing with a particular interest in relationship
functioning.

ORCID
Gina Di Malta http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6254-6522
Dominic Conroy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7356-2800
Naomi Moller http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9756-0367

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author,
upon reasonable request.

References
Akinla, O., Hagan, P., & Atiomo, W. (2018). A systematic review of the literature describing the
outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students. BMC Medical
Education, 18(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1195-1
Baik, C., Larcombe, W., & Brooker, A. (2019). How universities can enhance student mental well-
being: The student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(4), 674–687.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1576596
Baker, J. D. (2013). Online Survey Software. In M. Bocarnea, R. Reynolds, & J. Baker (Eds.), Online
instruments, data collection, and electronic measurements: Organizational advancements (pp.
328–334). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2172-5.ch019
Cacioppo, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Decoding the invisible forces of social connections.
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2012.00051
Cao, W., Fang, Z., Hou, G., Han, M., Xu, X., Dong, J., & Zheng, J. (2020). The psychological impact
of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Research, 287, Article
112984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934
Coe, K., & Scacco, J. M. (2017). Content analysis, quantitative. The International Encyclopedia of
Communication Research Methods, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0045
114 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

Collings, R., Swanson, V., & Watkins, R. (2014). The impact of peer mentoring on levels of student
wellbeing, integration and retention: A controlled comparative evaluation of residential stu-
dents in UK higher education. Higher Education, 68, 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
014-9752-y
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
DeRoma, V. M., Leach, J. B., & Leverett, J. P. (2009). The relationship between depression and col-
lege academic performance. College Student Journal, 43(2), 325–334.
Di Malta, G., Bond, J., Raymond-Barker, B., Moller, N., & Cooper, M. (in press). The impact of rela-
tional depth, emotional intimacy and relationship satisfaction on wellbeing in close relation-
ships in the community. Journal of Positive Psychology.
Di Malta, G., Cooper, M., Vos, J., & Van der Veer, K. (2020). An application of the three-step test-
interview (TSTI) in the validation of the relational depth frequency scale. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167820962626
Di Malta, G., Evans, C., & Cooper, M. (2020). Development and validation of the relational depth
frequency scale. Psychotherapy Research, 30(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.
2019.1585590
Di Malta, G., Raymond-Barker, B., & Cooper, M. (in press). Extended validation of the relational
depth frequency scale: Test-retest reliability, divergent validity, and criterion validity with psy-
chotherapy satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
Duncan, M. J., Patte, K. A., & Leatherdale, S. T. (2021). Mental health associations with academic
performance and education behaviors in Canadian secondary school students. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 36(4), 335–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573521997311
Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., & Wenderoth, M. P.
(2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life
Sciences Education, 6(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194
Gierveld, J. D. J., & Tilburg, T. V. (2006). A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneli-
ness: Confirmatory tests on survey data. Research on Aging, 28(5), 582–598. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0164027506289723
Giusti, L., Mammarella, S., Salza, A., Del Vecchio, S., Ussorio, D., Casacchia, M., & Roncone, R.
(2021). Predictors of academic performance during the COVID-19 outbreak: Impact of distance
education on mental health, social cognition and memory abilities in an Italian university stu-
dent sample. BMC Psychology, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00649-9
Grubic, N., Badovinac, S., & Johri, A. M. (2020). Student mental health in the midst of the COVID-
19 pandemic: A call for further research and immediate solutions. International Journal of
Social Psychiatry, 66(5), 517–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020925108
Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being:
An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00379.x
Hausmann, L. R., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of
intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students. Research
in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9
Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2019). Higher education student data. https://www.hesa.ac.
uk/data-and-analysis/students
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social
isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
Hughes G. (2021). The challenge of student mental well-being: Reconnecting students services
with the academic universe. In F. F. Padro
, M. Kek, & H. Huijser (Eds), Student support services:
University development and administration (pp. 1–23). Springer.
Hughes, G., & Spanner, L. (2019). The university mental health charter. Student Minds. https://
www.jamesonline.org.uk/resources/Wellbeing/mental_health_charter.pdf
Jones, E., Samra, R., & Lucassen, M. (2019). The world at their fingertips? The mental wellbeing
of online distance-based law students. The Law Teacher, 53(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03069400.2018.1488910
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 115

Kachaturoff, M., Caboral-Stevens, M., Gee, M., & Lan, V. M. (2020). Effects of peer-mentoring on
stress and anxiety levels of undergraduate nursing students: An integrative review. Journal of
Professional Nursing, 36(4), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2019.12.007
Kim, J., Joseph, S., & Price, S. (2020). The positive psychology of relational depth and its associ-
ation with unconditional positive self-regard and authenticity. Person-Centered & Experiential
Psychotherapies, 19(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2020.1717983
Lane, J., Lane, A. M., & Kyprianou, A. (2004). Self-efficacy, self-esteem and their impact on aca-
demic performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 32(3), 247–256.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.3.247
Laux, D., Luse, A., & Mennecke, B. E. (2016). Collaboration, connectedness, and community: An
examination of the factors influencing student persistence in virtual communities. Computers
in Human Behavior, 57, 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.046
Lee, R. M., & Davis, C., III. (2000). Cultural orientation, past multicultural experience, and a sense
of belonging on campus for Asian American college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 41(1), 110–115. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-13605-009
Lee, R. M., Keough, K. A., & Sexton, J. D. (2002). Social connectedness, social appraisal, and per-
ceived stress in college women and men. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(3),
355–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00200.x
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(3),
517–528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054
Lister, K., Seale, J., & Douce, C. (2021). Mental health in distance learning: A taxonomy of barriers
and enablers to student mental wellbeing. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and
e-Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2021.1899907
Mearns, D., & Cooper, M. (2017). Working at relational depth in counselling and psychotherapy.
Sage. https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/mearns_cooper_2e_fm_-_final.pdf
Mojtabai, R., Stuart, E. A., Hwang, I., Eaton, W. W., Sampson, N., & Kessler, R. C. (2015). Long-term
effects of mental disorders on educational attainment in the National Comorbidity Survey
ten-year follow-up. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50(10), 1577–1591. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1083-5
Moeller, R. W., & Seehuus, M. (2019). Loneliness as a mediator for college students’ social skills
and experiences of depression and anxiety. Journal of Adolescence, 73, 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.03.006
Moore, M. G. (2018). Handbook of distance education (4th ed.). Routledge.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning.
Cengage Learning.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2018). Content analysis and thematic analysis. In P. Brough (Ed.), Advanced
research methods for applied psychology (pp. 211–223). Routledge.
Office for Students. (n.d.). Student mental health: Our role. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/
advice-and-guidance/student-wellbeing-and-protection/student-mental-health/our-role/
Office for Students. (2019, November). Mental health: Are all students being properly supported?
Insight, 5. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/b3e6669e-5337-4caa-9553-049b3e8e7
803/insight-brief-mental-health-are-all-students-being-properly-supported.pdf
The Open University. (2021). About the OU. https://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/
Richardson, J. T. E. (2015). Academic attainment in students with mental health difficulties in dis-
tance education. International Journal of Mental Health, 44(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00207411.2015.1035084
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’
academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2),
353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning.
Distance Education, 24(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910303048
Sinclair, V. G., & Dowdy, S. W. (2005). Development and validation of the Emotional Intimacy
Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 13(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1891/jnum.13.3.193
116 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop, M. J. (2012). Evaluating social connectedness online: The
design and development of the social perceptions in learning contexts instrument. Distance
Education, 33(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.723168
€we, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing general-
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Lo
ized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097. https://
doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
Swenson, L. M., Nordstrom, A., & Hiester, M. (2008). The role of peer relationships in adjustment
to college. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.
0.0038
Thomas, S. L. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding student inte-
gration and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 591–615. k https://doi.org/10.
2307/2649261
Thorley, C. (2017a). Improving student mental health in the UK’s universities. Institute for Public
Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-09/not-by-degrees-summary-sept-2017.pdf
Thorley, C. (2017b). Not by degrees improving student mental health in the UK’s universities.
Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-09/not-by-degrees-sum-
mary-sept-2017.pdf
Times Higher Education. (2022). World university rankings: Open University. https://www.time-
shighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/open-university
Topp C. W., Østergaard S. D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 Well-being Index: A
systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84, 167–176. https://
doi.org/10.1159/000376585
UK Parliament. (2021). Coronavirus: A history of English lockdown laws. https://commonslibrary.
parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9068/
Waterhouse, P., Samra, R., & Lucassen, M. (2020). Mental distress and its relationship to distance
education students’ work and family roles. Distance Education, 41(4), 540–558. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01587919.2020.1821606
Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2006). It was nothing to do with the university, it was
just the people’: The role of social support in the first-year experience of higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 30(6), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500340036
Wilson, S., & Gore, J. (2013). An attachment model of university connectedness. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 81(2), 178–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.699902
Woolhouse, C., & Nicholson L. J. (2020). Mentoring in higher education, Case studies of peer learn-
ing and pedagogical development. Palgrave Macmillan.
Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L. M., Gill, H., Phan, L., Chen-Li, D., Iacobucci, M., Ho, R.,
Majeed, A., & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the
general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55–64. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001
Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. R. (2014). Support, belonging, motivation, and
engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional Science, 42(5),
661–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9310-0
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 117

Appendix: Students’ suggestions to improve connectedness at university

Satisfied with academic achievement (N ¼ 115) Dissatisfied or ambivalent with academic achievement (N ¼ 88)
N % N %
More tutorials 49 37 More tutorials 24 29
 Face-to face 31  Face-to-face 12
 Online 18  Online (with video) 12
Contact with tutors 33 25 Contact with tutors and 34 41
OU staff
 More emails/checking in  Continued contact
 Reminders of  More contact
support available  Engagement/responding
 Introductory/welcome to emails
phone call  Phone calls
 Someone at the end of  One-to-one support
the phone  One educational advisor/
 Regular phone calls mentor throughout studies
 Contact via OU app  Regular video conference
 Tutors to engage in forum to check in
discussions  Empathetic tutor
 Regular wellbeing check-in  To encourage engagement
 More one-to one contact with forum
 Posting at least once  Occasional personal emails
a week to check in
 Regular group emails  Regular, relevant, and
 New year email upbeat communication
 Being friendly and polite from OU
 Employing tutors who  Tips for mental health and
genuinely care working alone
 Scheduled video calls  Smaller tutor groups
 Tutors proactively
engaging in making
personal contact
Connectedness to peers 31 24 Connectedness to peers 19 23
 Annual social evening with  Social events
music, food, drinks  Interest/similarity groups
 Graduation ceremony  Local tutorials
 Local meet ups  Opportunities
 Zoom/online socials for teamwork
 Book clubs  In-person meeting
 Social events for  Assigned study partners
each region  Cluster group Zoom days
 Official WhatsApp group  Team meeting style get-
 Official social together/catch up
media groups  Creating student teams at
 Voluntary buddy system start of each module
 Small peer support groups  Forums for people of
 Group activities similar age groups
 Tailored Q&A peer  Study rooms other
support forums than forums
 Informal coffee mornings  Support groups
 Small study groups  Sharing writing
 Special interest groups  Mandatory
and forums introductory meeting
Happy as it is and/or OU 10 8 Happy as it is and/or OU 2 2.4
doing enough doing enough
Technology 8 6 Technology 3 3.6
 OU app to interact with  Chat base interface
students and tutors  WhatsApp group
 Opening tutor forum  Reminders for lectures
sooner for students to
start interacting before
course starts
(continued)
118 G. DI MALTA ET AL.

Continued.
Satisfied with academic achievement (N ¼ 115) Dissatisfied or ambivalent with academic achievement (N ¼ 88)
N % N %
 OU platform used as social
media instead of Facebook
 Reformatting forums to
make them more
user friendly
 Use of avatars in
forums/ emoticons
Other 7 6 Other 2 3
 Mental health team  Support person outside
 Student association of module
 Interesting area outside  Informal communication
of module  OU merchandise